Month: February 2023

-Report by Tannu Dahiya

Bombay High Court while hearing the petition on 27th February 2023 in the case Sandeep Arjun Kudale v. State of Maharashtra directed the police to carefully look into the matter and must find whether an offence has been made or not before arresting a person. 

Facts

The facts of the case are as follows:

In Writ petition no. 21880 of 2022

The complainant is a resident of Kothrud, Pune. One fine day while browsing on Twitter, he came across a video which was uploaded by the petitioner on his account wherein he was seen standing in front of the bungalow of Mr Chandrakant Patil, Minister of Higher and Technical Education and Cabinet Minister, Maharashtra State and Palak Mantri (Guardian Minister), making objectionable remark against him which has created disharmony in the communities and has provoked the sentiments of people belonging to Dr. Ambedkar and Phule’s community.Hence he registered an FIR against him alleging offences punishable under Sections 153A(1)(a) and 153A(1)(b) of the IPC, on 11.12.2022.

In the 2nd writ petition no. 21886 of 2022

Here the complainant is a resident of Wajre, Pune. He is an active social worker of the BJP. He mentioned that Mr. Chandrakant Patil mentioned about Dr. Ambedkar and Mahatma Phule in his speech which was misinterpreted by the petitioner.It is alleged that the petitioner by uploading the video had created an negative opinion of the said Minister and had also promoted enmity among the different groups in society. 

Petitioner’s contentions

The petitioner seeks to quash both the FIR against him. 

Mr Desai learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no offence as alleged has been disclosed against the petitioner in both the FIRs. The FIR was made with a political motive and the sole intention was to harass the petitioner who is also a member of the Congress Party. He was also arrested and kept in custody for two days without any justification. He was falsely framed in this case as he questioned one of the sitting cabinet members of the state. By lodging, this complaint his fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression is clearly violated. Hence the learned counsel pleads that both FIRs should be quashed and set aside. He also relied on the judgements made in Manzar Sayeed Khan v. State of Maharashtra & AnrBalwant Singh & Anr. v. State of Punjab, and Bilal Ahmed Kaloo v. State of Andhra Pradesh. 

Respondent’s contentions

Dr Saraf learned Advocate General opposed the petition claiming that the sections have been rightly invoked by the police. He submits that the video posted by the petitioner has created an atmosphere of enmity between different groups in society. He also argues that the Police were correct in every manner to register the FIRs as it is their duty to maintain public peace and tranquillity. 

Judgement

Since the issues involved in both the writ petitions are the same, they are heard together. The court made observations regarding different cases. In the Manzar Sayeed Khan case the Apex court held that it was not only the words of the book which should be for provoking the charge. It is the language of the book which decides its intention. 

In Balwant singh case, held that the appellants have committed an offence under Sections 124A and 153A of the IPC, for raising anti-national slogans after Indra Gandhi’s assassination.  In this case, the Court had accepted that mens rea is an essential ingredient of the offence

under Section 153-A and the spoken or written words must have an intention of creating public disorder for disturbance of law and order or affect public “tranquillity”, in order to commit an offence. Having considered the provision of law, the court held that no offence has been committed in this case and the FIRs are quashed and set aside. 

The reasons stated for this are that the petitioner in the video can be seen just commenting on the speech of the Minister which is clearly his opinion and he has the right to freedom of speech and expression as guaranteed under the Constitution. There is clearly no intention of the petitioner to create public disharmony and disturb the public “tranquillity”. The court asked the police to apply their mind before arresting a person as arrest makes a serious impact on the person as well his family’s reputation and mental health. 

The law cannot be used as a tool to harass people and stop them from expressing their views and raising their voices which the Constitution guarantees them. Hence the petitions are disposed of accordingly. The court also directed the state Government to pay Rs25000/- for the unjustified arrest made within four weeks of the order. 

Citation: C. W. P no. 21880 of 2022
               C. W. P no. 21886 of 2022

-Report by Arun Bhattacharya

The honourable Supreme Court of India on Monday (27^th of February, 2023) while allowing an appeal matter (SIRAJUDHEEN versus ZEENATH & Ors.) observed that “merely because a particular evidence which ought to have been adduced but had not been adduced, the Appellate Court cannot adopt the soft course of remanding the matter.” 

FACTS

The original matter concerned a civil suit filed by one of the sisters who were involved in an agreement regarding their father’s property. The primary cause of action arose because of a fraudulent or coercive sale deed executed between the original plaintiff and the present appellant which as per the former’s claim was signed under the misconception that it was an agreement of a completely different subject matter but later found out to be a sale of her portion or share in the partitioned property. The trial court dismissed the suit while the High Court in the appeal is not satisfied by the evidences and was confused to appropriately provide relief and hence remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for further incorporation of evidences. The respondents in that matter happened to be aggrieved by the same and filed the present appeal before the apex court.

APPELLANT’S CONTENTION

The counsel for the appellants primarily contended the fact that the honourable High Court was just in remanding the matter back to the Trial Court whereby giving the original plaintiffs another opportunity to adduce further evidences. This fact was a point of contention since it was their obligation while filing the initial suit and such ignorance should not be and cannot be made ground for furthering a matter which is already predisposed off. 

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION

The respondent/ original plaintiff’s counsel tried to convince the apex court of the vitality of the stance of the High Court while remanding the matter. They highlighted the merits of the case that since the document/ sale deed was void, it was appropriate on part of the High Court to provide such an opportunity to the aggrieved parties to submit further documents in favour of supporting the same.

JUDGEMENT

The honourable apex court while pointing out some of the errors committed by the High Court while deciding the aforementioned appeal observed that

“the High Court has not at all referred to the findings of the Trial Court and it is difficult to find from the judgment impugned as to why at all those findings were not to be sustained or the decree was required to be reversed”.

The fundamental factor that the honourable Supreme Court of India emphasised was that the High Court was unable to provide just and proper reasons for remanding the matter back to the Trial Court when the latter had already concluded the same. Thus the lack of particular evidences which was expected by one party to be submitted but was not cannot be a just reason to remand the matter back to a court which had already concluded the matter on the basis of already provided evidences. This was the stance of the apex court while allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order of the High Court.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3KFGFCl

Mahtta & Co. is looking to hire legal associates in Noida & Ludhiana interested in a dynamic role in the field of law with global exposure.

About the Organization

Mahtta and Co. (M&C) is a premier IP-Boutique firm based in India that has forged global relationships and developed international reach through all corners of the world. M&C concentrates exclusively on intellectual property matters. This includes trademark, copyright, patent, industrial design, and litigation service and general advisory on all IP issues.

Preferences

• Well-versed in IP laws
• Experienced in IP Prosecution & Opposition Procedures
• Avid Learner, Good Drafting Skills & Self-motivated
• Strong Skillset with Analytical Approach

PQE

1-2 years

Qualification

Bachelor of Law (LL.B)/ Master of Law (LLM)

Location

Noida & Ludhiana

Remuneration

As per industry standards

Application Procedure

Interested candidates may write to hr@mahttaco.in

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

About the Organization

Mandla & Singh Law Chambers is a multi-disciplinary Dispute Resolution, Criminal and Civil Litigation firm with dedicated verticals covering White Collar Crimes, Blue Collar Crimes, Company Laws, Property & Land Laws, and Matrimonial Laws, among other fields.

Internship Period

4 weeks, w.e.f., 01.03.2023

Location

Hauz Khas, South Delhi

Application Procedure

Interested persons, please apply with your CV at internships@mandlaandsinghlaw.com

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

Sinha & Company, Advocates are looking for Long Term Interns for their Corporate Law team.

About the Organization

A full-service law firm based out of Kolkata, founded in 1993 by Mr Paritosh Sinha (the Advocate-on-Record for the State of West Bengal).

Eligibility

4th year or 5th year of 5-year integrated law program

Department

Corporate law

Internship Duration

Willing to dedicate 6 -8 months

Mode of Internship

Offline/physical, no provision for online mode

Location

Kolkata

Remuneration

Remuneration negotiable

Application Procedure

Send your CV to career@sinhaco.com with the subject “Long-term internship for corporate law” by 15th March 2023.

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

-Report by Eshna Ray

The Constitution of India has been invoked by the petitioners under Article 32 to seek relief regarding the constitution of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi after the elections held on December 4, 2022. The elections were held to elect 250 Councillors, and the first petitioner is a prospective candidate for the post of Mayor. Despite over two months passed since the election, the election of the Mayor has not taken place. The matter is now before the Court, seeking a resolution to this delay in the constitution of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

Fact

The Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 is an act that establishes the municipal corporation in Delhi. Chapter II of the Act deals with the establishment of the corporation, and Section 35(1) provides for the election of the chairperson, known as the Mayor. Chapter V of the Act deals with the procedure and transaction of business by the corporation, and Section 72(1) provides for monthly meetings.

The controversy in the case before the court was whether aldermen nominated by the Administrator have the right to vote at the first meeting of the corporation where the Mayor is elected and the order of holding elections. The opposing views were that the aldermen should not have the right to vote, and all elections should be held simultaneously, respectively.

Article 243R of the Indian Constitution deals with municipalities, and Clause (1) stipulates that all seats in a municipality shall be filled by direct election. An exception is provided in Clause (2) of the Article, which allows the legislature of a state to provide for representation in a municipality of persons with special knowledge or experience in municipal administration. The Court heard arguments from both sides and considered the provisions of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and Article 243R of the Constitution.

Judgement

In this case, the Court was dealing with the question of the order in which the election of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and members of the Standing Committee of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi should be conducted. The Court referred to the relevant provisions of the Constitution and the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and also relied on the judgment in Ramesh Mehta v Sanwal Chand Singh (2004) 5 SCC 409.

Article 243R of the Constitution provides for the composition of Municipalities. Clause (1) of the Article provides for direct election to all the seats in a Municipality, subject to exceptions provided in clause (2). Clause (2) contains provisions, inter alia, for the representation in a Municipality of persons having special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration as well as other persons such as members of the House of the People and the Legislative Assembly and members of the Council of States and the Legislative Council of the States representing the specific constituency and the Chairpersons of the Committees constituted under clause (5) of Article 243S. The Constitution has imposed a restriction in terms of which nominated members who are brought in on account of their special knowledge or experience in Municipal administration do not have the right to vote. The same restriction finds statutory recognition in Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957.

The Court held that the election of the Mayor should be held first, and upon the election of the Mayor, the Mayor shall act as the presiding authority for conducting the election of the Deputy Mayor and the members of the Standing Committee. The Court clarified that the prohibition on the exercise of vote by the nominated members in terms of Section 3(3)(b)(i) shall continue to operate even during the election of the Deputy Mayor and members of the Standing Committee. The Court directed that the notice convening the first meeting of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi should be issued within a period of twenty-four hours and should fix the date for convening the first meeting at which the election of the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, and members of the Standing Committee shall be conducted in terms of the above directions.

The Supreme Court issued directions for the first meeting of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which includes holding elections for the Mayor and Deputy Mayor posts, and members of the Standing Committee. Members nominated in Section 3(3)(b)(i) of the Act cannot vote in these elections. The elected Mayor will preside over the elections for Deputy Mayor and Standing Committee members, where the same prohibition on voting by nominated members will apply. The notice for the first meeting must be issued within 24 hours and should include the dates for the elections as per the Court’s directions.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3xUyvOL

-Report by Eshna Ray

The Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service members have filed a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking appropriate writs or orders to be issued to respondent no. 1. The primary relief sought is the calling of judgments of the petitioners for elevation to the High Court as judicial officers as defined in Art. 217(2)(a) of the Constitution of India. The petitioners have also sought any other writ, direction, or order that the Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

FACTS:

The petitioners, who served as District & Sessions Judge Fast Track, have filed a writ petition claiming that their service should be considered as a judicial service for the purpose of their elevation to the High Court. The Registry had prepared a list of eligible officers for elevation to the High Court, in which the names of the petitioners were not included as they did not have 10 years of regular judicial service. The petitioners claimed that their service as Fast Track Court Judges should be considered as a judicial service, but the Supreme Court, relying on its earlier judgment, held that the petitioners were not entitled to seniority from the date of their initial appointment as Fast Track Court Judges. the plea raised by the petitioners to consider their service as judicial service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution is not legally sustainable.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:

According to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents, the petitioners were appointed on an ad-hoc basis to preside over Fast Track Courts under the Andhra Pradesh State Higher Judicial Service Special Rules for AdhocAppointments, 2001. Later, they were appointed on a regular basis in the cadre of District & Sessions Judge under the Andhra Pradesh State Judicial Service Rules, 2007, after going through the selection process. The petitioners’ names appeared in the seniority list of officers working in the District & Sessions Judge cadre, which was notified by the respondents on 5th January 2022. However, despite their seniority, they were not elevated to the High Court, while officers who were junior to them in seniority were elevated. The respondents have defended their decision to overlook the petitioners’ claims for elevation to the High Court.

PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:

The primary grievance of the petitioners is that their service as a District & Sessions Judge Fast Track, which they rendered on appointment from 6th October 2003, has not been considered as judicial service for the purposes of their elevation to the High Court bench as defined under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution. The petitioners have alleged that despite being eligible for consideration, their names were not considered by the collegium as they had not completed 10 years of regular judicial service, which is the requirement of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution. The petitioners have also pointed out that there were nine vacancies in the High Court for elevation from judicial service and a list of 27 eligible officers was placed before the collegium, but their names were not considered. Instead, officers who had completed 10 years of judicial service were considered for elevation.

JUDGEMENT:

The present case concerns a writ petition filed by certain District & Sessions Judges who were not considered for elevation to the Bench of the High Court as defined under Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution. The petitioners contended that their service rendered as a District & Sessions Judge Fast Track should have been considered as a judicial service for the purposes of their elevation to the Bench of the High Court.

The Supreme Court, in its judgment, referred to the case of Kum C. Yamini Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 6296 of 2019 decided on 14th August, 2019), where it had examined the nature of appointment of the District & Sessions Judges Fast Track and had held that the petitioners were not entitled to claim the benefit of seniority from the date of their initial appointment as District & Sessions Judge Fast Track and other consequential reliefs prayed for.

The Court held that the services rendered by the petitioners as Fast Track Court Judges have not been recognized for the purpose of seniority except for pensionary and other retirement benefits. Therefore, the plea raised by the petitioners to consider their service rendered as Fast Track Court Judges as a judicial service for the purpose of Article 217(2)(a) of the Constitution was not legally sustainable.Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as without substance. Pending application(s), if any, stood disposed of.

READ FULL JUDGEMENT: https://bit.ly/3KEZXrm

About VS Mani Centre for Air and Space Law

VSMCASL was established in 2019 to engage in various ways in shaping the emerging discourse in the field of Air and Space Law. The Centre’s vision is to improve the existing legal and policy framework for the facilitation and regulation of safe, secure, affordable, and sustainable aviation and to contribute to the shaping of a legal foundation for the future of humanity that lies in space. The Centre was established to provide a platform for the students to develop their research skills in the field of Air and Space Law and encourage trans-disciplinary research on issues concerning it.

About the GNLU Air and Space Law Conference

The International Conference aims to provide a platform for deliberations amongst Air and Space Law enthusiasts, thereby contributing to the emerging discourse on the challenges posed to Air and Space Law in the future. The first edition of the Conference was successfully conducted in 2022. Encouraged by the same, VSMCASL is pleased to present the 2nd Edition of GNLU Air and Space Law Conference 2023, to be organised on 8 July 2023.

Important Dates

• Last Date for Abstract Submission: Friday, 31 March 2023
• Abstract Selection and Intimation – Monday, 10 April 2023.
• Last Date for Registration – Saturday, 15 April 2023.
• Last Date for Full Paper Submission – Wednesday, 10 May 2023.

Submission Guidelines

• Abstract: 300-500 words
• Paper: 3000 – 5000 words (excluding references; submission below or above the word limit shall not be considered).
• Citation style: OSCOLA. (4th Edition)
• Font: Times New Roman; Font size-12; Spacing- 1.5.
• A cover page with the title of the Essay, name and affiliation of the author/co-authors shall be attached.
• Submit text as a Microsoft Word document (.doc or .docx). Co-authorship is permitted up to a maximum of two authors.
• Submissions need to be original.
• Plagiarism shall result in disqualification.
• Submissions shall be made online only.
• Submissions shall be in English.
• The topic, once registered, shall not be changed.
• Any identification mark (in any form) in the paper shall lead to disqualification.
• Multiple or incomplete submissions shall not be considered.
• Any manuscript received after the last date shall not be considered.

Sub-themes

• Management and regulation of airports
• Anti-competitive issues in aviation
• Protection of consumer rights in aviation
• Aviation financing
• Insolvency and Bankruptcy issues in the Aviation industry
• Aviation-related crimes and aerial terrorism
• Air accidents/incident investigation
• Search and rescue Environmental aspects of the aviation industry
• Commercial space mining
• Space tourism
• Space debris
• Space communications
• Space exploration
• Space Insurance Environmental harm due to human activities in space International liability for incidents/accidents in space
• National space law and policies

(List of sub-themes is indicative. Accordingly, a research paper on any other area relating to the theme of the Conference may be considered.)

Fees

• GNLU Students – INR 590/-
• Students – INR 1180/-
• Others – INR 1770/-

The registration fee is the same for participation and presentation. The fee mentioned above is exclusive of accommodation and is non-refundable.

Details about Abstract Submission and Fees Payment: https://gnlu.ac.in//Document/content-docs/f0be8a74-e549-4542-b858-77e7c70ce896.pdf

CLICK HERE TO REGISTER

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

About the University

The National Forensic Sciences University, with the status of an Institution of National Importance is the world’s first and only University dedicated to forensic, behavioural, cybersecurity, digital forensics, and allied sciences. It was established by the Parliament of India through Act 32 of 2020 with the objective of training and creating forensic experts for the country and the world.

About School of Law, Forensic Justice and Policy Studies

School of Law, Forensic Justice and Policy Studies is established to impart professional education with a special focus on forensic application in all allied areas of law and policy framework. The school aspires to be the leading provider of forensic justice understanding to all professionals from different areas of governance including justice administration. Through forensic lenses it focuses on crime prevention, crime reduction, crime mapping, and speedy and fair dispensation of justice, thereby contributing to the overall welfare of people. The school ultimately envisions producing sound techno-legal experts who can contribute in all areas of governance

Details about the event

It is a privilege and pride to announce that SLFJPS, NFSU is organizing the 1st National Moot Court Competition 2023 from 24-26th March 2023 at National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar Campus, Gujarat in Physical Mode. The moot court competition promises to present an interesting challenge to the participants across the legal spectrum, as the moot proposition has been drafted to test the teams and their approach to contemporary issues. Since NFSU is the only forensic sciences university, the moot proposition is directed towards the application of forensic sciences.

Important Dates

• Last Date for Registration: 13. 03. 2023 11:59 pm.
• Last Date of Memorial Soft Copy Submission: 18.03.2023
• Submission of Hard Copy (3 Sets from each side): 24.03.2023
• Competition Date: 24-26.03.2023

Eligibility Criteria

Any student pursuing law from a recognized institution

Location

National Forensic Sciences University, Gandhinagar

Registration

Registration fees: 4000/-

Registration Link

https://forms.gle/epkA8qsFr5PJGZp17

Brochure

Contact Information

For any query, please feel free to contact us:

• Email- mootcourtcommittee@nfsu.ac.in
• Phone no.- 7719992345

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd

About the Organization

Arcum Global is a legal management firm specializing in residency planning and global business setups.

Position available

Associate

Location

New Delhi

Qualification

LLB/LLM/CS

Role and Responsibilities

1. Assisting with research & drafting in the sphere of international tax laws and regulations and FEMA
2. Conducting market study and competition mapping for business setups in North America and Europe.
3. Preparation of Research Reports
4. Drafting and reviewing legal documents such as contracts and agreements.
5. Client handling

Application Procedure

Interested candidates can share their CVs at inquiries@arcumglobal.com

Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.

For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-

WhatsApp Group:

https://chat.whatsapp.com/Iez749mZfpaGfG4x2J6sr9

Telegram:

https://t.me/lexpeeps

LinkedIn:

https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexpeeps-in-lexpeeps-pvt-ltd